On the other hand, Rooky initially explains that he doesn’t really like to “make fun of people who oppose the death penalty because they are so sincere. ” Nevertheless, he wishes they would come up with new reasons as to why the government should put a stop to the death penalty. The author exemplifies his strong perspective on capital punishment by explaining many individual cases in which people “suffered a terrible loss, and live with terrible memories. He declares that every one of these families share “the knowledge that the killers are alive,” and they will not gain vengeance until It Is evident that the criminals are not being “cared for by society. ” Rooky emends that the “opponents of the death penalty” should think about what the families of these criminals have had to go through, and then explain to them “Just how cruel it is to kill someone. ” In each article, the writers explain their reasons for taking one side.

King points out that taking lives will not solve society’s problems: “An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking never upheld by legalized murder. ” First, she makes comments about several instances in which people have been “mistakenly convicted. ” The author explains that even if specters eave only had this happen once, “that is too often. ” Second, she indicates there have also been cases where the Judge assumes the criminal Is “beyond rehabilitation. King continues to say that even in a situation Like that, “Who shall make that determination? ” Third, the writer disputes the fact that half of the “persons now on death row are black. ” she believes this Is a “racist application of laws,” and even a trends. ” In contrast, Rooky tells of the “worn out” arguments relayed by those in opposition to the death penalty. First, he speaks of how the public thinks that psychiatrists should duty the killers to find out why they commit these crimes.

The author replies that it takes a psychiatrist five years to figure out “why a guy wants to stop for two drinks after work and wont quit smoking,” so why would they want to sit for even more years and listen to “Willie the Wolfram describe his ax murders. ” Next, the writer talks about how people want to know what right society has “to take a life if an individual can’t. ” He responds by saying “the individuals who make up a society give it that right” because the government does numerous things that individuals cannot o, such as delegating the right to use guns to the police but not to citizens.

Third, Rooky mentions how society assumes that “the death penalty doesn’t deter crime. ” The author retorts that in most cases criminals do not consider the future consequences when they’re committing the crime. In conclusion, the authors of “The Death Penalty Is a Step Back” and “Death to the Killers,” utilize personal experiences to sustain their principles about the death penalty. Correct Scott King and Mike Rooky argue two sides of an issue that will continue to be a controversy for years to come.